‘Family analysis: In Richardson-Ruhan v Ruhan the court was concerned with assertions that assets belonging to the husband were held for him by a nominee, related commercial proceedings and arguments as to sham. Michael Chapman, partner, and Holly Tootill, senior associate, both from JMW, who acted for the wife in this case, answer some questions on this complicated and extensive decision.’

‘Mark Warwick QC of Selborne Chambers explains the hurdles that need to be cleared in order to establish that a trust is a sham in the light of the judgment in ND v SD and Others (2017) EWHC 1507 (Fam).’

‘On 8 July 2014, the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (UT) handed down its eagerly awaited judgement in HMRC v Murray Group Holdings and Others[1], which concerned an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) structure. Most readers will know this case as the ‘Rangers Case’, as the facts relate to employees of the Scottish football club as it existed before its liquidation and subsequent purchase.’

“The completion of sale of land and mortgage did not become effective until all executed title documents including mortgage loan agreement and deed in the name of the purchasers or an effective undertaking from the purchaser’s real solicitor or agent to exchange the documents were received by the vendor or his agent. Therefore, a solicitor who had parted with the money entrusted to him by the lender to a purchaser’s fictitious solicitor in exchange for a purported undertaking from the bogus solicitor to exchange and forward those documents committed a breach of trust.”

“Section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, which gave a trustee in bankruptcy three years from the date of the bankruptcy to decide what to do about any interest in a house inhabited by the bankrupt or their current or former spouse or civil partner, was concerned only with property which actually formed part of the bankrupt’s estate at the time at the commencement of the bankruptcy. It did not apply to property currently vested in a third party but in respect of which a claim to set aside a transaction at an undervalue might be made under section 339 of the 1986 Act, in respect of which the limitation period remained the 12 years provided for under section 8 of the Limitation Act 1980.”